9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 666 - HC - Income TaxLosses of 80IC unit set off against the profit of the other non 80IC units - substitute Section 10B with Section 80-IC - Whether the decision in KEI Industries Ltd. 2015 (3) TMI 618 - DELHI HIGH COURT was rightly relied on by the Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue, as the conditions contained in Section 80-IC and that of Section 10B are pari materia and the legal principle has been rightly applied by the Tribunal to say that the loss suffered by the assessee in an unit is entitled to exemption under Section 10B cannot be set off against the income from any other unit not eligible for such exemption? - HELD THAT - The question would be, can it be done especially, when the Tribunal has not assigned any reasons as to how it came to the conclusion that the decision in KEI Industries Ltd (supra) would squarely apply to the assessee's case and above all, why the finding returned by the CIT(A) was erroneous. Decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Yokogawa India Ltd. 2016 (12) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT , which was rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court much after the impugned decision by the Tribunal. As argued before us by the assessee that Section 10B occurs in Chapter 3 of the Act, which deals with income not to be included in the total income and when income is not to be included in the total income, loss should also be excluded from the total income and cannot be set off against the income from other unit. Further, it is argued that even in the case of Section 10A, the provision was converted into a provision granting deduction and not exemption of income and in several cases, it has been held that profit from Section 10A unit can be set off against the loss of other units. In decision in the case of Mohan Breweries and Distilleries Ltd. 2007 (10) TMI 354 - ITAT MADRAS-B and Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 1978 (10) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT wherein the issue was that loss of unit entitled to deduction under Chapter VI-A, which has been set off against such income in the respective year, cannot be notionally carried forward. Tribunal did not assign any reason as to why it was satisfied that the order of the CIT(A) is erroneous, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the losses of an 80-IC unit cannot be set off against the profits of other non-80-IC units. 2. Whether the Tribunal should have appreciated that losses from any line of business should be set off against profits from other lines of business under Sections 70 and 71 of the Income Tax Act. 3. Whether the Tribunal ignored the provisions of Section 80B(5) defining gross total income before making any deduction under Chapter VIA. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Set-off of Losses of 80-IC Unit Against Profits of Non-80-IC Units The assessee, engaged in the manufacture and sale of two and three-wheelers, incurred a loss from its Himachal Pradesh Unit, eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC of the Income Tax Act, and set it off against the income from non-80-IC units. The Assessing Officer disallowed this set-off, holding that the income or loss from the Himachal Pradesh Unit should be treated as the only source of income, thus not eligible for set-off with other units. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal by the assessee, stating that the loss of the 80-IC unit should be included in the gross total income and set off against other sources of income. The Tribunal, however, reversed the CIT(A)’s decision, relying on the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT vs. KEI Industries Ltd., which held that losses from an exempt unit cannot be set off against income from non-exempt units. Issue 2: Tribunal's Appreciation of Set-off Provisions Under Sections 70 and 71 The assessee argued that the income from the Himachal Pradesh Unit is not exempt but eligible for deduction under Section 80-IC, and thus should be included in the gross total income, subject to aggregation and adjustment under Sections 70 and 71. The CIT(A) supported this view, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Synco Industries Ltd., A.M. Moosa, and Shirke Construction Equipment Ltd., which held that gross total income should include both profits and losses from different units, and deductions under Chapter VI-A can only be allowed if the gross total income is positive. The Tribunal, however, did not provide detailed reasoning for rejecting this argument and simply relied on the KEI Industries Ltd. decision. Issue 3: Ignoring Provisions of Section 80B(5) The CIT(A) emphasized that Section 80B(5) defines gross total income as the total income computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act before any deductions under Chapter VI-A. The CIT(A) argued that the loss from the 80-IC unit should be included in the gross total income and set off against other sources of income. The Tribunal did not address this provision in its decision, leading to the conclusion that the Tribunal's order lacked sufficient reasoning and was deemed a "non-speaking order." Conclusion and Remand The High Court found that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasoning for its decision and did not explain why the CIT(A)'s findings were erroneous. The Tribunal's reliance on the KEI Industries Ltd. decision was not substantiated with sufficient analysis. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal, being the last fact-finding authority, must provide detailed reasons for its conclusions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, allowing both the assessee and the Revenue to present their factual and legal contentions. The substantial questions of law were left open for determination by the Tribunal in accordance with the law.
|
